Larvatus Prodeo

This was my response to the argument that Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme Green Paper was a fine piece of pragmatic politics:

Where’s the need to cut fuel excise if low income earners are to be compensated in general (presumably via tax cuts) for increased costs associated with the ETS? Wouldn’t it be an equitable and an eminently social democratic solution for petrol to be included in an ETS and for only those most affected to be compensated?

More broadly, the whole thing is a rent-seeker’s paradise.

And wasn’t Kevin Rudd elected on the promise that he’d prioritise “evidence-based policy” and eschew short term political fixes in favour of long term solutions?

Even as a Green Paper, this thing makes no sense. All the concessions have been made in advance, and probably a lot need not have been made. This isn’t the same sort of policy courage we saw from Labor in the response to Mabo. This is thoroughly pathetic.

As to how Kevin Rudd could have steered a good model through the Senate? Two words: Double dissolution.

Or if that doesn’t do it for you, try policy courage.

Why cave in to whatever nonsense the holders of a couple of swing votes in the Senate might demand in advance?

Paul Keating wouldn’t have. Whatever happened to negotiating strategy?

In any case, “unrepresentative swill” describes Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding rather nicely, in both senses of the word, I’d have thought.

And whatever happened to arguing the case and getting public opinion on side? The polling evidence suggests that a rigorous ETS would be eminently saleable. What better issue to spend a bit of political capital on? Was Kevin Rudd elected to ensure that Australia has a sustainable future, or to mollify business interest groups and maintain a ten point lead in Newspoll at all times and at all costs?

Is old fashioned leadership too much to ask from Kevin Rudd?

Comments here please.

Update: Tim Watts replies to us.